Tio vs Videogram Regulatory Board

151 SCRA 208 Political Law The Embrace of Only One Subject by a Bill
Delegation of Power Delegation to Administrative Bodies
In 1985, Presidential Dedree No. 1987 entitled An Act Creating the Videogram Regulatory
Board was enacted which gave broad powers to the VRB to regulate and supervise the
videogram industry. The said law sought to minimize the economic effects of piracy. There
was a need to regulate the sale of videograms as it has adverse effects to the movie
industry. The proliferation of videograms has significantly lessened the revenue being
acquired from the movie industry, and that such loss may be recovered if videograms are to
be taxed. Section 10 of the PD imposes a 30% tax on the gross receipts payable to the
LGUs.
In 1986, Valentin Tio assailed the said PD as he averred that it is unconstitutional on the
following grounds:
1. Section 10 thereof, which imposed the 30% tax on gross receipts, is a rider and is not
germane to the subject matter of the law.
2. There is also undue delegation of legislative power to the VRB, an administrative body,
because the law allowed the VRB to deputize, upon its discretion, other government
agencies to assist the VRB in enforcing the said PD.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Valentin Tios arguments are correct.
HELD: No.
1. The Constitutional requirement that every bill shall embrace only one subject which shall
be expressed in the title thereof is sufficiently complied with if the title be comprehensive
enough to include the general purpose which a statute seeks to achieve. In the case at bar,
the questioned provision is allied and germane to, and is reasonably necessary for the
accomplishment of, the general object of the PD, which is the regulation of the video
industry through the VRB as expressed in its title. The tax provision is not inconsistent with,

nor foreign to that general subject and title. As a tool for regulation it is simply one of the
regulatory and control mechanisms scattered throughout the PD.
2. There is no undue delegation of legislative powers to the VRB. VRB is not being tasked
to legislate. What was conferred to the VRB was the authority or discretion to seek
assistance in the execution, enforcement, and implementation of the law. Besides, in the
very language of the decree, the authority of the BOARD to solicit such assistance is for a
fixed and limited period with the deputized agencies concerned being subject to the
direction and control of the [VRB].

4. Neither can it be successfully argued that the DECREE contains an undue delegation of
legislative power. The grant in Section 11 of the DECREE of authority to the BOARD to "solicit the
direct assistance of other agencies and units of the government and deputize, for a fixed and limited
period, the heads or personnel of such agencies and units to perform enforcement functions for the
Board" is not a delegation of the power to legislate but merely a conferment of authority or discretion
as to its execution, enforcement, and implementation. "The true distinction is between the delegation
of power to make the law, which necessarily involves a discretion as to what it shall be, and
conferring authority or discretion as to its execution to be exercised under and in pursuance of the
law. The first cannot be done; to the latter, no valid objection can be made." 14 Besides, in the very language
of the decree, the authority of the BOARD to solicit such assistance is for a "fixed and limited period" with the deputized agencies concerned
being "subject to the direction and control of the BOARD." That the grant of such authority might be the source of graft and corruption would
not stigmatize the DECREE as unconstitutional. Should the eventuality occur, the aggrieved parties will not be without adequate remedy in
law.